Fibonacci series -- and Culture

Charles Brown CharlesB at SPAMCNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Tue Feb 20 08:43:30 MST 2001




>>> ScottH9999 at aol.com 02/19/01 05:52PM >>>
Charles says: 'Nuclear weapons are "more" techonologically and scientifically
"advanced", but are they more rational?'

Recall that 'rational' means pretty much the same as 'reasonable'. So what
sorts of things can reasonably be called "reasonable" or "unreasonable"?

((((((((

CB: Sounds like the Age of Reason.  Sounds like the law. The reasonable person
standard in torts, etc.

(((((((



Well, most basically, arguments, statements, positions, viewpoints, actions,
activities, and the like--OF HUMAN BEINGS (and possibly of other sufficiently
human-like animals, etc.). And also of GROUPS of human beings, and--by
extention--of HUMAN INSTITUTIONS which reflect the collective attributes of
human beings, and so forth.

(((((((((((

CB: Aren't humans also the main locus of irrationality and unreason ?

99999999




It makes sense to speak of the rationality of human cultures insofar as
cultures do reflect the overall, or average, or typical positions,
viewpoints, activities, and the like, of the human beings who make up the
culture. And likewise the "rationality" of different cultures can be
reasonably compared insofar as what is meant (and what is really being
compared) are things such as the typical level of rationality of the members
of the different societies, etc.

In many contexts it therefore sounds quite strange to talk about nuclear
weapons as either "rational" or "irrational". Only in contexts where this is
elliptical for expressions such as "the human USE of nuclear weapons", and so
forth, does it really make any sense.

(((((((((

CB: OK . Or even just the very fact that humans are making the nuclear weapons is
irrational and unreasonable, from the perspective of species being, and the self
interest of most people .


((((((




Thus we can say nuclear weapons are indeed irrational from the point of view
of the proletariat, because--being weapons of mass destruction, there seem to
be few--if any--circumstances where the USE of nuclear weapons could possibly
serve the real interests of the proletariat and the masses. And we can
likewise reasonably say that nuclear weapons (i.e., the USE of nuclear
weapons) is quite rational from the point of view of imperialists (such as
the U.S. ruling class), because they do not give a damn about the life and
welfare of the millions of people they are willing to kill in order to hang
onto their privileges, their power and their empires.

((((((((((((

CB: I prefer to say the proletariat's interest is rational and the imperialists
interests are irrational, from the standpoint of humanity as a whole.

((((((((




So I am NOT saying that things that are technologically and scientifically
advanced are THEREFORE "rational". That is only true insofar as things which
are technologically and scientifically advanced genuinely serve the interests
of the proletariat and the masses, and even then, keeping in mind that we are
speaking from the point of view of the proletariat.

(((((((((((

CB: Ditto




--Scott Harrison



In a message dated 2/19/01 1:45:26 PM Pacific Standard Time,
CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us writes:

> >>> ScottH9999 at aol.com 02/17/01 01:57PM >>>
>  It is a fact of history that at various times some cultures are more
>  technologically, scientifically, and socially advanced than others. And if
> we
>  are going to talk about the "rationality" of cultures at all, it would
seem
>  quite reasonable to say that some cultures are therefore more rational
than
>  others. Doing so should only mean that the prevailing world views,
>  understanding of the world, and such, which typify a culture, are more
>  rational than those which typify another culture.
>
>  ))))))))))))))
>
>  CB: Nuclear weapons are "more" technologically and scientifically
"advanced",
>  but are they more rational ?
>
>






More information about the Marxism mailing list